LOFT Scenaros Anyone?

[CAT III C]

Please people lets share some loft scenaros or training or recurrent syllabus for any equipment.
I will be uploading some for boeing 737s.

[TO MEMO]

Well, it`s basically a normal flight, but you introduce a failure... and several threats, for threat and error management.

Here is one I like to use, for a quick one.

Take off with an EO, at an airport with an EOSID. After EOSID give pilots an hold at a fix that they are not expecting, close to terrain. Introduce ceilings at 500ft and give heading for ILS interception, but make them intercept the ILS from above.

It`s not dificult and several threats than you really have on a day by day basis.

Cheers

[CAT III C]

hey thanks!
cant find any info on the web. its creepy. almost as if its some conspiracy...
know where i can find some training or recurrent syllabus?

[Wizofoz]

One of my favourites is to have departure weather not suitable for return, then have the gear not retract.

Not in any way an emergency, but a huge management exersize as you are now essentially in a different, lower performance/higher consumption aircraft and need to work out where you can and can't go.

[AAA737300BF]

Winter operations, contaminated runway takeoff, runway limited, braking action medium-poor, hydraulic failure affecting flaps and/or brakes => departure runway to short for return with given malfunction => diversion to suitable longer runway further away

---

B737: PMC/EEC failure on eng => switch off PMC/EEC on both engines,
later eng fail on same engine in cruise => do you reverse PMC to ON on remaining operating fully functional other engine that never had a problem or do you continue to operate the only remaining engine on reduced margins?
Combine with high terrain (crossing Alps GVA - MXP?) for drift down procedure.
=> System knowledge and apply procedure for situation where no checklist exists

[Admiral346]

If you really are from Islamabad, quite a few possible scenarios come to mind immediatly -
try problems while under non radar HF airspace with congested freq (mumbay), high terrain with pressurization and/or engine problems (northern Pakistan, Afghanistan) - how about any political issues to be observed in your area - we used to have lots of soldiers on board when flying to Kuwait, so they gave us a scenario with an engine failure overhead Bagdad (A330) with the threat of antiaircraft fire in Iraq (no fly below 25000') and the obvious diversion to Iran not being too smart of an idea...

Just be creative

Nic

[Centaurus]

lease people lets share some loft scenaros or training or recurrent syllabus

Depends if you are playing with your Microsoft PC or wishing to undergo serious training in a full motion flight simulator. LOFT is fine at home on your PC where you can invent mind-boggling scenarios for fun. Personally I prefer feet up on a Saturday night and watch The Bill.

On the other hand, if you have access to a real full motion simulator, then rather than waste time on autopilot "managing" the above mind boggling scenarios, the priority should be to improve your hand flying and raw data skills. Once you can confidently fly your aircraft without using the automatics as a crutch, only then can you afford the luxury of plugging in the automatics and watch the magic boxes at work while you "manage" things.

In view of ever increasing official evidence that loss of control (pilot error for want of being politically incorrect) is now the latest major cause of accidents, then throw caution to the winds and work up some sweat with practice ILS with 35 knot crosswind landings on limiting length runways, instrument let downs on standby navigation and flight instruments, stall recovery and unusual attitude recovery at 37,000ft.

Have a go at low level stall recovery below 1000 ft from autopilot coupled approach, one engine circling approaches, emergency descents clean or gear down low speed configuration, black hole approaches with no glide slope guidance, all flaps up landings on limiting length, slippery runway max performance braking short runway, slippery runway cross wind landings where sliding sideways may require judicious operation of brakes and reverse.
Loss of all engines has occurred in the past, so try a dead stick descent from 20,000 ft and land.
This is the stuff of real flying skill and far better for your confidence than a plethora of unlikely multiple double jeopardy scenarios in a LOFT.

[Basil]

Fwd cargo door blowout in climb or cruise takes engine out (both engines on a 4).
Extra drag created by hole/bits of aeroplane makes yaw control marginal.
Unable to configure for landing in level flight because, with reducing speed, rudder authority insufficient.
Answer: Commence continuous descent from 10,000ft / 30nm and arrange never to apply high power.
If you have to go around you are, of course, toast.

I guess the foregoing will be less critical in a trijet.

[bfisk]

I feel a lot of these scenarios aren't really as much LOFT as they are details. With regards to Centaurus post, the discussion of LOFT-or-not vs use of avaliable sim time, that's an interesting an on-going discussion, but not exactly what the thread starter was asking, perhaps.

A few possible scenarios:

Planned flight from A to B with close to minimum fuel and generally poor weather, requiring takeoff alternate etc. Let flight progress normally and introduce a system failure close to destination, along with busy traffic. Everything sorted out, landing in conditions close to minimums, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Planned flight from A to B, engine fire on climbout, go to takeoff alternate which then becomes below minimums, and have the crew go somewhere else.

The point of the LOFT excercise as far as I'm aware, is to get out of the simulator V1-cut mentality, where you pretty much know what will happen. It is to practice crm, normal and abnormal procedures in a realistic setting. Ask yourself how many accident reports you've read that included an engine failure around V1 and how many included loss of situational awareness due to something that could easily be percieved as a minor event?

And again; the answer may very well be that LOFT scenarios are a waste of time compared to drilling maneuvers. I don't know, but that's a whole other discussion.

[PAPI-74]

Normal departure with a TCAS event. Hydraulic leak prompting you to select gear normally and divert the remaining supply to the roll spoilers. Landing weight limited; div as necessary to a long runway (no anti-skid and reduced normal braking action)or land heavy from start airfield. Crew, Ops and Pax liaison, hold fuel, fuel remaining and keep reviewing your decisions.
The loft ex's are a good tool in teaching/reminding you about decision making under abnormal strain and the vital loop. Although there is pressure to pass - and pass well - making the whole exercise a bit of an anxious affair, I wish there was more time in the sim to practice.

Train till you never get it wrong.......rather that train till you get it right.

[747dieseldude]

gear won't retract is a favorite of mine.
Put the destination on the other side of the alps.

Oil press slowly decr. could be fun too. Especially on 4 engine a/c.

Wx barely minimum at all nearest airports, good at the destination and sick pax.

Fuel leak.

Lofts are all about decision making and crm. Anything that is not an emergency or anything that doesn't have a checklist for or anything that doesn't specifically say 'land at nearest suitable'.

Another item is combinations, see that you get the full picture, including landing, g/a and diversions. Primary brake loss plus slippery rwy is a good one.
Another could be dispatch with no steering, wind just at the tailwind limit and the other direction landing would require backtrack.

Endless possibilities...

[747dieseldude]

one more thing - always put in the temptation to against sop or limitations:

hydraulic shut off because of overheat - turn it back on for gear retracion to clear terrain?
Fire switch pulled without fire or evident damage - push it and restart?
1 knot over wind limit - land?
Sick pax, wx at cat 2 and autoland inop - land manually?
Engine fail, nearest is just below, destination 200 miles out...

[Type1106]

bfisk poses the question 'the answer may very well be that LOFT scenarios are a waste of time compared to drilling maneuvers. I don't know, but that's a whole other discussion'

IMHO ideally the two should not be combined as they both have totally different desireable outcomes. Provided simulator time is available, crews should have LOFT provided for them as a separate training period from 6 month recurrent emergency /handling checks.

Having written many LOFT scenarios there is no doubt in my mind that the best are those which include content where there may not be one right answer but the discussions in the debrief are invaluable. Certainly not a waste of time.

[TopBunk]

Centaurus saidIn view of ever increasing official evidence that loss of control (pilot error for want of being politically incorrect) is now the latest major cause of accidents, then throw caution to the winds and work up some sweat with practice ILS with 35 knot crosswind landings on limiting length runways, instrument let downs on standby navigation and flight instruments, stall recovery and unusual attitude recovery at 37,000ft.Those all have very valid places in recurrent training, but not as a LOFT imho.

Training those in quick succession via sim resets/circuits (in the case of X-wind landings, stalls at FL370) is the way to go. Doing them as a LOFT exercise accompllishes some benefit for the HP only for one landing/stall.

LOFT exercises should be about dealing with real world problems in real time as a crew (both pilots and simulated cabin crew) for CRM purposes, liaison with ATC/other aircraft for procedural issues, contacting company engineering and ops for diagnosis and decision inputs, in order to best simulate the real world.

The problems introduced should be operational and could include (but not be limited to) technical failure, operational requirements, weather related, passenger related, security induced etc and have side issues such as political (go/no go countries, FIR clearances), terrain, fuel, operational minima (MOA due winds, MDA, runway load and bearing limitations,etc), procedural (NATS track procedures for wx/technical).

[PLovett]

After reading some of these scenarios I never realised how many pilots parents were unmarried. :}

[iflytb20]

Since most of our flight are over water, one of the favorite scenarios of our Sim Instructors is dual FMC failure. We really had to go back to old DR and VOR navigation methods and the first time we did this, it was a real wake up call. Now i make it a point to practice it regularly either in the acft or in the sim at home.

Maybe this might help with your requirements.

Cheers

[411A]

One of my favourites is to have departure weather not suitable for return, then have the gear not retract.
Not in any way an emergency, but a huge management exersize as you are now essentially in a different, lower performance/higher consumption aircraft and need to work out where you can and can't go.

Yes...and as Hapag Lloyd found out the hard way, that you can't go that far.
Add a failed engine enroute, and the problem becomes much more serious.

[FE Hoppy]

Best sim I ever had was one where everything was normal from start to shudown.

After 30 minutes we were confused. After an hour we were panaroid. By the time we landed we were jibbering wrecks.

Not much training value but sims were free and plentiful at the time. I'll never forget it though.

[A37575]

he problems introduced should be operational and could include (but not be limited to) technical failure, operational requirements, weather related, passenger related, security induced etc and have side issues such as political (go/no go countries, FIR clearances), terrain, fuel, operational minima (MOA due winds, MDA, runway load and bearing limitations,etc), procedural (NATS track procedures for wx/technical).

These are all time wasting in a simulator. If as people claim, that simulator time is expensive and therefore subject to priority training, surely most of what I am reading above could be equally effective if conducted in a class room with a "facilitator". Leave simulator training for hands on regular practice of sequences that need real handling skills (not necessarily all button pressing) or those that cannot be safely completed in the real aircraft - after all, wasn't that why full motion simulators were designed in the first place?

[groundfloor]

How about revising the incidents/accidents for your type for the previous year...Do those scenario`s.

[TopBunk]

A37575

We'll have to agree to disagree, I feel.

From my perspective, a LOFT exercise should be as much about CRM as re-inforcing technical skills and QRH usage - there are lots of other mandatory handling skill checks each year. It is important that we as flight crew understand the implications of our calls to the cabin, and the workload/timings and implications for ourselves that they induce as part of our procedures.

Just think through a 'bomb threat' scenario and the consequences of the checklist. Lots going on everywhere - getting uptodate weathers, comms with ATC, implications of that depending on where you are (radar/procedural environment), company comms, cabin procedures, timings, descent profiles (with/without terrain considerations) etc etc. In this situation these issues are more of a consideration than flying the aircraft, but equally important for the flight crew.

In my ideal world, time each year would be set aside for real full crew training. A first step would include at least the Senior Cabin Crew Member in LOFT scenarios, rather than the instructor role playing.

Shock, horror - it could even mean rostering a extra sim detail a year - after all, if you think safety is expensive, try costing a crash.

[Mike_E]

"Line Oriented Flight Training" What LOFT ops I have observed were more oriented towards initial or upgrade training where the technical course was over, checkride passed, now conduct a line segment more typical of day to day ops with a couple of obscure considerations thrown in.

One scenario I conducted and was dictated to me was to conduct four legs over a four hour sim block with one missed approach and diversion. Another issue to deal with was an inop nav light that was MEL'd.

At end of four hour block, after we landed at dusk, I handed crew dispatch papers to reposition a few hundred miles away. They erupted rather crudely about having to continue, not remembering the nav light issue (getting dark)and not cognizant of the fact the four hour block was over and another training session was awaiting the sim. When they were led to reality of situation, they were quite sheepish about the outburst :D

Mike